project-files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that files are listed; it does not state whether this is a safe read-only operation, how project detection works, whether files are scanned from disk, or what format/sorting the response will use.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single declarative sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no filler or redundancy. For a parameterless list tool, this is appropriately sized and structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a short description, the agent knows what to call and why, but not what exactly counts as 'files' or what the returned list contains. This is a minimum-viable definition, not a rich one.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a clear verb ('List') and resource ('files') with a concrete scope ('active or detected Blender project'). It distinguishes the tool's intent among siblings like project-report or outliner-tree, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or define what qualifies as a 'file'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, exclusion criteria, or mention of alternatives. The scope 'active or detected' implies context, but the description never tells an agent when to prefer project-files over project-report, project-settings, or outliner-tree.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.